• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Dire Times Ahead For England

Rich2001

International Captain
marc71178 said:
Flintoff's non-Test average (over about 5 times as many games) is 38.73, whereas Jones has played 1 season for about 41-42.
Was up around 60 for the whole season, unfortuantly he had a few poor games in the run in that dropped it below the 50 mark for the first time in his life, remember Marc he played a few games the season before.

But yeah ended up around 46 in the end.... But was by far and away the leading WK in the country, more runs, higher avg, most catches, most stummpings etc etc - And all his batting was done from a lower position than most other WK's
 
Last edited:

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Career Average : 42.85

Average in 2003 : 44.77

Needs more than 1 season IMO.


As for the Ealham, Walker, etc.

If he's good enough for number 6 in Tests, he ought to be ahead of one who would never go in above 8 in all seriousness for England, or one that won't ever play for them.
 

Rich2001

International Captain
marc71178 said:
As for the Ealham, Walker, etc.

If he's good enough for number 6 in Tests, he ought to be ahead of one who would never go in above 8 in all seriousness for England, or one that won't ever play for them.
That's a fair point but you select players on form in County Cricket not how (or would) play for England, at the end of the day had you or anyone even heard of the guy before last season... let alone he would be making his debut for a England XI in the Winter! And as a result where would you have placed him in the order when everyone else is established and so consistant?

At the end of the day you have a point in that when he was in his fine form they could well have promoted him up the order a bit, but why change a winning forumla? It was the bowling that let us down and as a result we have signed alot of bowlers this winter that should solve that, I honesty feel you wont fine a much better attack next summer.

* Saggers (Well need I go on)
* Khan (Devloping nicely, very handy bat too)
* Sami (Maidstone v Notts 15 W-Haul)
* Sheriyar (Not a great season, but variation and a good stock bowler)
* Stiff (England Under 19 star, 12 counties after him - Got to be half decent right?)
* Cusden (stupidly good 2nd XI season last year, earnt promotion)
* Joseph (Same here, very very good but WI birth means he can't play for the 1st until he doesn't class as a overseas)
* Symo (never had a bad season yet, performs even better at county level than for Aussie, can't complain having a International as a 5th bowler!)
* Dennington (Named as the New Ealham, not convinced yet but hasn't done bad espically in the One Dayer's)
* Walker (You may laugh but the guy is a wicket-taker, I think the opp just think it;s easy scoring and just get themselves out, not complaining though ;) )
* Treadwell (devloping very well, academy 3/4 years and a good batsman)
* Farely (Not to bad, showed promising signs last season)
* Patel (Fantastic spinner on his day, hopfully a season out with a injury has lost him any of his magic)
* Trott (Had a good season last year, only injury put pay to it in the end)

Lets just hope the batting holds now ;) :rolleyes:

*Oh what was the subject again please* :D
 
Last edited:

Craig

World Traveller
I still thing Michael Vaughan under-bowls himself. I think he quite a good spinner (well he's not the worst!) and should look to bowl himself 5-10 overs a innings, perhaps 15 overs if need be.

He is certainly a better spinner then Richard Dawson.
 

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Rich2001 said:
* Joseph (Same here, very very good but WI birth means he can't play for the 1st until he doesn't class as a overseas)
What Joseph is that? What's his full name?
 

Rik

Cricketer Of The Year
Rich2001 said:
* Stiff (England Under 19 star, 12 counties after him - Got to be half decent right?)
I can see the headlines now:

"Youngster to Stiffen up English Attack"

It's a crying shame :( :( :(
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
marc71178 said:
Of course he won't, but if Ealham had stayed at Kent, I expect he would've done.
:duh: See, anyone can get confused where Notts are concerned? Not just Neil.
If Ealhie had stayed at Kent, I'd be amazed if he was still batting ahead of Jones next season.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
marc71178 said:
Talk about contradicting yourself!!!!!!
I've already responded to that...
Originally posted by Richard
IMO Vaughan is a better middle-order player than he is opener.
He's easily up-to-standard as a county opener, even at Headingley, but I still think he's better at three or four.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Craig said:
I still thing Michael Vaughan under-bowls himself. I think he quite a good spinner (well he's not the worst!) and should look to bowl himself 5-10 overs a innings, perhaps 15 overs if need be.

He is certainly a better spinner then Richard Dawson.
IMO they're about equal; the Tendulkar\Agarkar balls were televised on national television and perhaps they have raised expectations of Vaughan, but Dawson is just as capable of bowling them; a ball delivered to Stephen Peters at New Road at the tail-end of last season was almost an identical delivery to those of Vaughan mentioned above.
Almost any fingerspinner can bowl those balls given something to make the ball turn. The reason Vaughan is a better option as a fingerspinner than Dawson or anyone else is simply because of the fact that he is a batsman.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
marc71178 said:
So of his 12 matches so far, he's had impressive spells or innings in 7 of them - terrible.
And these 3 spells of impressive figures still lower his average against decent batting-line-ups to 43. Fantastic.
A question for you; Harmison is likely to go to West Indies. The pitches in West Indies are more than likely to be graveyards for bowlers like Harmison. The batting (Gayle, Hinds if he bats three, Ganga possibly, Lara, Chanderpaul, Sarwan, Jacobs) is likely to be strong. If Harmison plays all 4 Tests and takes 5 wickets for 450, what will your response be? Only hypothetical as of yet, but in my view the likely outcome. So what would you say if it came to pass? Would you excuse it because the wickets offered nothing to his style of bowling?
So it's my imagination that he was far ahead of the rest of our seamers in SL then?
No, it's not your imagination that he was better than the rest of the seamers in Sri Lanka - it is that he was far ahead, but he was the best of a bad bunch.
Now, while you think this says something about ability, I don't. Just because your peers are poor, it doesn't make you any better.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Mr Mxyzptlk said:
I was referring to Michael Clarke.

The intention was to show that that's the same attitude of many Aussie supporters which is getting frowned upon by many non-Aussies (English).

Clarke is accepted by many as a good enough batsman to play in Tests and seems to be considered a Test success already. He's yet to play one...
And I say exactly that. I wouldn't call myself a Michael Clarke detractor, because his one-day and ODI records are very impressive indeed, but I most certainly hold the view that until he plays a Test we can't say certainly that he's Test class.
If I seem to be taking it for granted that Jones is a Test-class batsman I apologise. I have always been one to say that one season doesn't mean you're the business. However, I simply think that Jones is a better option than Read, who has suceeded for a season then failed for one. Jones has succeeded for a season. I know who'd be in the driving seat if I were David Graveney.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
PY said:
That statement about Steve Harmison makes me think you didn't see that spell of bowling. He took those wickets BUT he also had several ripping deliveries (ie rising cutting off the seam on off-stump) that didn't take wickets.

Those balls deserved wickets but didn't get them. Surely you can't begrudge him the one's he did get? Think the key is that it all evens itself out when it comes to bowling, not so sure i does with batting but hell, they've scored the runs.
If a bowler had a wicket for every time he made a batsman play-and-miss with a decent ball, most decent seamers would average about 10 and the exceptional ones about 6 or 7.
The skill in bowling comes not in getting play-and-misses, but following a spate of play-and-misses by eventually bowling one that takes the edge. That is what I have said countless times about Flintoff and Harmison.
It is impossible to say for certain either way whether it all evens itself out with bowling. It is fairly safe to say, and I've said it many times, that most batsmen have more good luck than bad in a career and some have more than others, but with bowling there are so many play-and-misses you'd have to keep a diary while watching a match. There are few observers good enough to do that. I'd get bored stiff.
I will continue to point-out that bad or nothing-special balls took wickets if they do so and continue to judge on the balls that took the wickets, not their predecessors or successors.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
marc71178 said:
Key, Walker - come off it!!!!!!!

And you think he would make the England team purely as a batsman when he came in after them AND Ealham last season?
Yes, I do - because wherever he came in, he scored the runs.
And as Rich has pointed-out, if Kent had an unsettled line-up and he was scoring at nearly 60 for the first 2\3s of the season, he'd have been at four, possibly three. However, they don't - they have a line-up of settled batsmen who have been scoring runs, for Kent (and Kent aren't obliged to judge on Test-matches), with consistency in the last 3 years. You can't just say to a batsman "this guy's averaging 60 to your 45 - sorry, you're all moving down a place". Sorry, Fulton, Key, Smith, Symonds and Walker have been there for longer. If you ask me, Jones could be better than the lot of them, regardless of what order John Invararity chooses for them. But until he plays another season, we won't know for sure, as Liam has been at pains to point-out.
 

Tom Halsey

International Coach
Richard said:
It’s a popular belief and in some cases it’s totally untrue. Most batsmen have slightly more good luck than bad over a career; some (like Trescothick) have much more good luck. Even in The Ashes and the first 4 South Africa Tests, he was still getting luck, just fortunately it wasn’t resulting in undeserved big scores.
As for Vaughan, I can give you an exact breakdown if you like:
115 v SL, Lords: dropped on 28 and 33 by Jayasuriya at second-slip.
100 v Ind, Lord’s: dropped by Ratra on 50, caught-behind on 77 and given not-out, lbw on 89 and given not-out, should have been caught on 97 by any other fielder than Ganguly.
197 v Ind, Trent Bridge: dropped by Patel on 19.
Even in a 55 against India at Headingley, he still managed to get dropped twice in 2 balls, before giving yet another chance shortly after and it being taken.
177 v Aus, Adelaide Oval: caught at cover on 19, given not-out by a gutless third-Umpire.
As I say, Vaughan himself, to his credit, admitted to his luck, so to deny it is rather silly.
He had lots of luck in a short period of time; other than that, there hasn’t been much. He played 3 good innings in that time, too, at The Oval (195), MCG (146?) and SCG (187). However, since the start of the 2003 season his luck has dried-up. He has made 2 centuries (Edgbaston v SA; Kandy v SL) and a half-century (Kandy v SL) but his average, excluding the Bangladesh games, is poor.
IMO he would do far better, with his style of play, in the middle-order.
You are contradicting yourself. In a thread a while ago (I cannot be bothered to get a quote) you stated that all batsman have about the same amount of luck, and the main point was that all batsman hit the stumps about 1 in 10 times from inside edges. Now you are saying that some batsmen are more lucky than others.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
No, these two things are completely unrelated. Here I am talking about big slices of luck - ie something that should result in your dismissal not doing so (dropped catches, missed stumpings, clear lbws turned-down). There are always going to be some batsmen who have more luck than others.
Now regarding inside-edges; an inside-edge that just misses the stumps is a tiny fraction of luck compared to a missed stumping etc. All batsmen will have about the same amount of these throughout a career, but this has nothing to do with what I am talking about in this thread.
It's apples and oranges... again. There is luck (a let-off), and there is a bit lucky (hitting the ball in the air just past a fielder, inside-edging past the stumps, missing the outside-edge by a fraction, etc.).
I am not contradicting myself because I am talking about two different things.
 

Tom Halsey

International Coach
But the batsman is surely still very lucky, because a few inches the other way and he is gone. It is not a smaller piece of luck
 

raju

School Boy/Girl Captain
No such thing as luck Gents. Everyone has their good and bad breaks...it is the superior player who capitalizes on his good ones.

Football managers and bad gamblers are always talking of bad luck...they NEVER mention their good luck. To use an example people tend to lose in Casinos because the house has the % advantage...luck doesn't come into it...%s are all that matter and if you are the right side of them then you will profit in the long-term.

Better players score more runs because they are better players...its that simple.
 

Rich2001

International Captain
raju said:
No such thing as luck Gents. Everyone has their good and bad breaks...it is the superior player who capitalizes on his good ones.

Football managers and bad gamblers are always talking of bad luck...they NEVER mention their good luck. To use an example people tend to lose in Casinos because the house has the % advantage...luck doesn't come into it...%s are all that matter and if you are the right side of them then you will profit in the long-term.

Better players score more runs because they are better players...its that simple.
I agree that the better players will make the most of any chance given, but if I can take you back a few years Nasser Hussian went through about a year and a half of quite dreadfull bad luck, every innings he was getting given out when he clearly wasn't (pitched outside leg, inside edge etc etc) over time these were probley even themself out, but through no fault of Nasser's he was regularly dismissed when not out... IMO that is bad luck and not just a poor player.
 

raju

School Boy/Girl Captain
Rich2001 said:
I agree that the better players will make the most of any chance given, but if I can take you back a few years Nasser Hussian went through about a year and a half of quite dreadfull bad luck, every innings he was getting given out when he clearly wasn't (pitched outside leg, inside edge etc etc) over time these were probley even themself out, but through no fault of Nasser's he was regularly dismissed when not out... IMO that is bad luck and not just a poor player.
I agree Nass got some shockers but this was followed by a ton vs Sri Lanka when he should have been given out 4 times, mostly to bat/pads if I remember right. Swings & Roundabouts.

Also being dropped is bad play not bad luck. How many times does Butcher drop catches? Why on earth does he field where he does? When he was put in the covers for the Oval test this year he was impressive. When he is in the cordon he is nothing short of a disgrace...made even worse by having that stupid grin on his mug after he has spilled another . If I was a bowler I would insist on him not fielding there.
 

Top